A recent Vermont court decision continues the shut-out being tossed by the state of Vermont against MPHJ. You can read the full decision here.
Just to recap the proceedings before getting to the latest decision:
- On May 13, 2013 the State of Vermont sued MPHJ in Vermont state court alleging violations of Vermont’s consumer protection law.
- MPHJ removed the case to federal court and requested dismissal of the case due to a lack of personal jurisdiction.
- Vermont filed a motion to remand on July 8, 2013 and District Judge William Sessions heard arguments on February 25, 2014.
- Judge Sessions found that the federal court lacked jurisdiction and thus granted the state’s motion to remand on April 15, 2014.
- MPHJ appealed to the
SecondFederal Circuit*, which affirmed the remand. State of Vermont v. MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC, Nos. 2014-1481, 2014-137, 2014 WL 3938955 ( 2dFed. Cir. Aug. 11, 2014)
With the case in state court, Vermont Superior Court Judge Helen Toor heard the parties’ positions on the propriety of personal jurisdiction over MPHJ (note that Judge Sessions declined to decide this issue as he believed it was premature), i.e., whether MPHJ had minimum contacts with the state and whether it would be fair to exercise jurisdiction over MPHJ in the event that minimum contacts exists.
MPHJ and the state’s position differed mainly in the characterization of the letters that MPHJ sent. MPHJ indicated that it was just a patentee defending its rights. MPHJ relied on long-standing precedent that allows patentees to send demand letters to allegedly infringing parties (generally) without fear of being hailed into the infringer’s jurisdiction. In contrast, the State (and ultimately, the Court) focused on the alleged illegality of the letters themselves. In other words, since the State has alleged the letters violate Vermont’s consumer protection statute, the letters are sufficient, in and of themselves, to establish minimum contacts with the state where the letters were received. The court analogized to cases involving text messages and mailings in violation of consumer protection laws, libel suits where the libeler was in a different jurisdiction than the libelee, and phone calls made in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The importance of the court’s insight should not be understated. My brief review of the cases cited by the court allow for much fewer contacts with the forum state than one would normally expect under standard personal jurisdiction factual scenarios. We are basically in a hybrid civil-criminal scenario, where illegal activity, once committed in a state comes under the jurisdiction of that state. We wouldn’t bat an eye at a state prosecutor charging an out-of-state person for a crime committed in the prosecutor’s state, and in much the same way, we shouldn’t be surprised if a business sends an illegal letter to a state resident and the state decides to prosecute.
The court then assessed whether or not, in spite of the minimum contacts, it would be fair to MPHJ to defend itself in Vermont. Weighing heavily against MPHJ is the fact that it was the state, itself, as the plaintiff, and that MPHJ’s letters threatened suit of the alleged infringers (which would necessarily take place in Vermont) and ultimately the court found that it would be fair to subject MPHJ to the suit in Vermont courts.
Next up for the court will likely be discovery issues…this could take a while.
*ed. - Thanks to Walter Judge of Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC for pointing out that it was the Federal Circuit that reviewed the remand decision of Judge Sessions, not the Second Circuit as set forth in Judge Toor’s opinion.